vrc_rename_bones

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that if armature_name is empty, it uses the first armature found, but it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the original mesh, or any prerequisites or side effects beyond vertex group updates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: two sentences explaining the main action and one line for parameter details. No redundant information, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main functionality but lacks completeness for a data-modifying tool. It does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or what the output schema returns (though an output schema exists). Gaps exist for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It explains the armature_name parameter's purpose and default behavior (uses first armature if empty), which provides useful context beyond the schema's type and title.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it renames bones from common schemes (Mixamo, MMD, VRM, Blender) to VRChat-compatible standard names and updates vertex groups. This verb-resource-action is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrc_fix_model.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does and parameter behavior, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.